27,380 Alzheimer's and dementia studies in plain English, each scored out of 100.
Even without subjective cognitive complaints, higher risk of cognitive impairment is presented in the prefrail and frail individuals. 5 key findings →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 1,686 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
After carefully reviewing the literature, the group concluded that there were insufficient data to make evidence-based recommendations. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research increasingly suggests that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in older adults, in the absence of objective cognitive dysfunction or depression, may be a harbinger of non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to dementia. 3 key findings →
Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Research in gerontology has demonstrated mixed effects of social support on cognitive decline and dementia: Social support has been shown to be protective in some studies, but not in others. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of 57 participants (mean age ± SD = 66.6 ± 7.2 years; female = 52.6%), 38.6% (n = 22) had MCI-level functional impairment and 17.5% (n = 10) had dementia-level functional impairment. 5 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 22 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Of the 799 participants (mean [SD] age, 46.2 [11.6] years; 424 women [53.1%]) randomized, 641 completed the 12-month follow-up and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 341 (n = 4 mosques) in the intervention group and 300 (n = 4 mosques) in the control group. 5 key findings →
Participants: 799 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Hearing aid use was associated with a modestly lower risk of probable dementia overall (Hazard Ratios, HR, 0.91), but the association was confined to participants reporting improvements in hearing (HR 0.86), with no apparent benefit among those reporting poor improvement in hearing (HR 0.98). 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Participants: 61,089 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Linear and logistic regression showed that childhood rural residence was associated with lower memory (standardized beta (β) = -1.68, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-2.39, -0.97]), executive function (β = -1.20, 95% CI [-1.84, -0.55]), and language fluency (β = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.64, -0.08]). 5 key findings →
Participants: 3,073 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a year-long, home-based individual cognitive stimulation (iCS) program on cognitive performance, mood, functional independence, and quality of life (QoL) in older adults with mild Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia. 2 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 18 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
A total of 2,642 participants with a mean age of 64.3 years (95% CI 63.4-65.1, 44% male) were included. 5 key findings →
Participants: 2,642 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Full text may need a subscription
=0.03), indicating improved executive function. 5 key findings →
Design: randomized controlled trial Participants: 33 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Frailty status (prefrail/frail n = 520, robust n = 625) at baseline did not modify the effect of intervention on global cognition during the 2-year follow-up (P-value for frailty × intervention × time interaction > .05). 5 key findings →
Participants: 520 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
The Mediterranean dietary pattern as captured by the MedDiet scoring system may reduce the rate of cognitive decline with older age. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In this large-scale prospective epidemiological study, we examined associations of long-term adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MeDi) and subsequent cognitive function and decline. 2 key findings →
Participants: 16,058 Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
To examine the association between dietary habits, cognitive functioning and brain volumes in older individuals, data from 194 cognitively healthy individuals who participated in the Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors cohort were used. 2 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Mediterranean diet is a term used to describe the traditional eating habits of people in Crete, South Italy and other Mediterranean countries. 1 key finding →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
In women at higher risk of cognitive decline due to vascular disease or risk factors, adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was not associated with subsequent 5-year cognitive change. 2 key findings →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Cogmed was better on one core WM measure and had higher ratings of satisfaction. 5 key findings →
Participants: 68 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Dogs develop cognitive decline and a progressive accumulation of oxidative damage. 3 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
We used Cox proportional hazard analyses to examine prospective predictors of driving cessation over a 3-year period. 2 key findings →
Participants: 1,838 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Diet may be an important modifiable risk factor for maintenance of cognitive health in later life. 5 key findings →
Participants: 1,499 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
Aging is associated with progressive changes in learning and memory. 4 key findings →
Design: longitudinal study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The Short FES-I is a valid measure to assess fear of falling in frail older adults with and without cognitive impairment, yet it may show floor effects in higher functioning older people. 1 key finding →
Design: cross-sectional Participants: 284 Evidence: low
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The aging population is increasing and, therefore, a higher prevalence of cardiac disease is emerging; including hypertension, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation and chronic heart failure. 1 key finding →
Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source
The use of new technologies (i.e., mobile ecological momentary assessments [EMAs], activity tracker) in the PENSA study allows the collection of continuous data on lifestyle behaviors (diet and physical activity) and mood, enabling a personalized design as well as an intensive follow-up of participants. 2 key findings →
Participants: 200 Evidence: high
Full summary, score breakdown and related studies → Original source Free full text
Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read
This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.
Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.
Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.
We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.
The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.
See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 27,380 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.
This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 27,380 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (60.6% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.6%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.
1,032 records (3.8% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.
See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →